18. I would agreee with you that seven rounds is punitive

I'd go even further, and argue that it is likely to promote more people who would otherewise be law abiding to be scoff laws.

But on the other hand, there was an excellent argument made that the 13th bullet that killed the little girl at the Gabby Gifford shooting made the difference between her being alive or dead.

Loughner was only stopped because he had to reload.

So, while it will always be arbitrary where to draw the line, given there are now AR-15 pistols and other assault-style pistols I can understand the arguments for settling on a lower rather than higher magazine size to try to address the problem guns. Therefore it is not really true that this is a petty, punitive or pointless restriction.

Isn't it true that most revolvers are five or six shot? And isn't it possible to either find smaller magazines for 22 target rifles? If so, after the ban has been in effect for say one legislative cycle, I would argue that the better alternative to fighting such a ban completely might be to amend the legislation so that such weapons as the target rifles can be considered legal so long as the magazines used with them are smaller.

That would seem to me to be the better compromise between those who want to use those weapons you mention, and those trying to come up with solutions that work.